none of the actors have come forward, none of the executioners have come forward.

Who shot JFK? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

You need to actually look for the truth before you comment,

Plenty of opinions but no one actually looked at the video of the under side of the plane. You all just started spouting off what you remember. Not what you have researched.

Do the work or don't bother posting. Please.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

second plane with lame music
( 0:59-1:02 clearly normal twin engine plane)[/quote]

no, look this

ok, checked, the circulated thing is shadow from right side engine(the videos right side)

You need to actually look for the truth before you comment,

Plenty of opinions but no one actually looked at the video of the under side of the plane. You all just started spouting off what you remember. Not what you have researched.

Do the work or don't bother posting. Please.

No, I looked at the video, I even referenced blurry footage. Enlarging a low quality image will lead to anomalies, like an engine possibly appearing as something else. I just went with the implications of what you are suggesting if we were to believe that the plane that hit the tower was not a passenger jet. The fact that there aren't great hi-def images of the planes does not, of itself, support the Truthers claims. Hi Def was not on the scene back in 2001 (at least not to any great degree and certainly not used by local news in NYC). Individual's hand held cams are likely to be of poorer quality (and most appear so) than the images provided by local news, thus enlarging these images does not add clarity if anything the opposite is true. On top of that there's the re-encoding for YouTube and you're simply asking for trouble to say that these images are prima facie evidence of a coverup.

Take a look at the still photos here and here, they're a lot clearer. Nothing on either of them to indicate the planes were carrying anything out of the ordinary.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Cognitive dissonance?

:)

You need to actually look for the truth before you comment,

Plenty of opinions but no one actually looked at the video of the under side of the plane. You all just started spouting off what you remember. Not what you have researched.

Do the work or don't bother posting. Please.

No, I looked at the video, I even referenced blurry footage. Enlarging a low quality image will lead to anomalies, like an engine possibly appearing as something else. I just went with the implications of what you are suggesting if we were to believe that the plane that hit the tower was not a passenger jet. The fact that there aren't great hi-def images of the planes does not, of itself, support the Truthers claims. Hi Def was not on the scene back in 2001 (at least not to any great degree and certainly not used by local news in NYC). Individual's hand held cams are likely to be of poorer quality (and most appear so) than the images provided by local news, thus enlarging these images does not add clarity if anything the opposite is true. On top of that there's the re-encoding for YouTube and you're simply asking for trouble to say that these images are prima facie evidence of a coverup.

Take a look at the still photos here and here, they're a lot clearer. Nothing on either of them to indicate the planes were carrying anything out of the ordinary.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Cognitive dissonance?

:)

You need to actually look for the truth before you comment,

Plenty of opinions but no one actually looked at the video of the under side of the plane. You all just started spouting off what you remember. Not what you have researched.

Do the work or don't bother posting. Please.

No, I looked at the video, I even referenced blurry footage. Enlarging a low quality image will lead to anomalies, like an engine possibly appearing as something else. I just went with the implications of what you are suggesting if we were to believe that the plane that hit the tower was not a passenger jet. The fact that there aren't great hi-def images of the planes does not, of itself, support the Truthers claims. Hi Def was not on the scene back in 2001 (at least not to any great degree and certainly not used by local news in NYC). Individual's hand held cams are likely to be of poorer quality (and most appear so) than the images provided by local news, thus enlarging these images does not add clarity if anything the opposite is true. On top of that there's the re-encoding for YouTube and you're simply asking for trouble to say that these images are prima facie evidence of a coverup.

Take a look at the still photos here and here, they're a lot clearer. Nothing on either of them to indicate the planes were carrying anything out of the ordinary.

Not sure how this applies:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, that the passenger jet was not a passenger jet but something else (even though I can't see anything to suggest this is the case). Where does that line of arugment lead? Step by step. Was my earlier speculation that far off?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Prima facie evidence has been suppressed,


Example:

Confiscating and holding videos from the Pentagon impact from the American people. Any reason for this?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Any reason for this?

THAT's a matter of '(inter)national security'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Prima facie evidence has been suppressed,


Example:

Confiscating and holding videos from the Pentagon impact from the American people. Any reason for this?

asked and answered:

I'm not overly surprised that footage of the attack on the Pentagon was surpressed, but then I come from a nation where the Gov't is routinely secretive, perhaps this aspect is troubling for some.

In the UK where Gov't is routinely secretive, and the MoD (UK equiv of the US DoD) doubly so. The DoD did eventually release some of the footage they held, you can see it here, unfortunately it's from a security camera, and won't do anything to dispell you of the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Seems the DoD did not invoke the secrecy angle, instead:

The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

I've answered many of your questions, would you now answer mine? For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, that the passenger jet was not a passenger jet but something else (even though I can't see anything to suggest this is the case). Where does that line of arugment lead? Step by step. Was my earlier speculation that far off?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Prima facie evidence has been suppressed,


Example:

Confiscating and holding videos from the Pentagon impact from the American people. Any reason for this?

asked and answered:

I'm not overly surprised that footage of the attack on the Pentagon was surpressed, but then I come from a nation where the Gov't is routinely secretive, perhaps this aspect is troubling for some.

In the UK where Gov't is routinely secretive, and the MoD (UK equiv of the US DoD) doubly so. The DoD did eventually release some of the footage they held, you can see it here, unfortunately it's from a security camera, and won't do anything to dispell you of the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Seems the DoD did not invoke the secrecy angle, instead:

The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

I've answered many of your questions, would you now answer mine? For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, that the passenger jet was not a passenger jet but something else (even though I can't see anything to suggest this is the case). Where does that line of arugment lead? Step by step. Was my earlier speculation that far off?

Your baiting me to speculate,

For the sake of argument, if it isn't a passenger jet then the official story is false or incorrect.

That's far enough down the rabbits hole one needs to go.


As for the UK being secretive... I'll have to take your word for it, though I have been presented with some data confirming this.

See: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=47301


If you ask me you were crazy to give up your UK Visa. IMHO



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Prima facie evidence has been suppressed,


Example:

Confiscating and holding videos from the Pentagon impact from the American people. Any reason for this?

asked and answered:

I'm not overly surprised that footage of the attack on the Pentagon was surpressed, but then I come from a nation where the Gov't is routinely secretive, perhaps this aspect is troubling for some.

In the UK where Gov't is routinely secretive, and the MoD (UK equiv of the US DoD) doubly so. The DoD did eventually release some of the footage they held, you can see it here, unfortunately it's from a security camera, and won't do anything to dispell you of the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Seems the DoD did not invoke the secrecy angle, instead:

The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

I've answered many of your questions, would you now answer mine? For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, that the passenger jet was not a passenger jet but something else (even though I can't see anything to suggest this is the case). Where does that line of arugment lead? Step by step. Was my earlier speculation that far off?

Your baiting me to speculate,

For the sake of argument, if it isn't a passenger jet then the official story is false or incorrect.

That's far enough down the rabbits hole one needs to go.


As for the UK being secretive... I'll have to take your word for it, though I have been presented with some data confirming this.

See: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=47301


If you ask me you were crazy to give up your UK Visa. IMHO

Fortunately for me neither HMG nor the US Gov't required me to give up my UK/Euro passport on becoming a US citizen, so now I'm a dual national.

As for the rabbit hole, I think it only fair to ask what became of the passengers on the real flight, if it wasn't the real flight that hit the WTC? And how were the friends and family who received calls deceived? If they weren't the real flights it's conceivable that there was no need for laying explosives for demolition ahead of time as the plane could've carried sufficient charges to ensure the buildings came down, but there's still that niggling thing of the original passengers ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Prima facie evidence has been suppressed,


Example:

Confiscating and holding videos from the Pentagon impact from the American people. Any reason for this?

asked and answered:

I'm not overly surprised that footage of the attack on the Pentagon was surpressed, but then I come from a nation where the Gov't is routinely secretive, perhaps this aspect is troubling for some.

In the UK where Gov't is routinely secretive, and the MoD (UK equiv of the US DoD) doubly so. The DoD did eventually release some of the footage they held, you can see it here, unfortunately it's from a security camera, and won't do anything to dispell you of the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Seems the DoD did not invoke the secrecy angle, instead:

The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

I've answered many of your questions, would you now answer mine? For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, that the passenger jet was not a passenger jet but something else (even though I can't see anything to suggest this is the case). Where does that line of arugment lead? Step by step. Was my earlier speculation that far off?

Your baiting me to speculate,

For the sake of argument, if it isn't a passenger jet then the official story is false or incorrect.

That's far enough down the rabbits hole one needs to go.


As for the UK being secretive... I'll have to take your word for it, though I have been presented with some data confirming this.

See: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=47301


If you ask me you were crazy to give up your UK Visa. IMHO

Fortunately for me neither HMG nor the US Gov't required me to give up my UK/Euro passport on becoming a US citizen, so now I'm a dual national.

As for the rabbit hole, I think it only fair to ask what became of the passengers on the real flight, if it wasn't the real flight that hit the WTC? And how were the friends and family who received calls deceived? If they weren't the real flights it's conceivable that there was no need for laying explosives for demolition ahead of time as the plane could've carried sufficient charges to ensure the buildings came down, but there's still that niggling thing of the original passengers ...

Davie Jones' locker is my guess,

I liked the analysis of the one guy talking to his Mom, giving his full name to her as if She wouldn't know his last name.

*Edit: Oh, and congratulations on the dual passport. Your last name wouldn't happen to be Bond would it?

;)


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Fortunately for me neither HMG nor the US Gov't required me to give up my UK/Euro passport on becoming a US citizen, so now I'm a dual national.

As for the rabbit hole, I think it only fair to ask what became of the passengers on the real flight, if it wasn't the real flight that hit the WTC? And how were the friends and family who received calls deceived? If they weren't the real flights it's conceivable that there was no need for laying explosives for demolition ahead of time as the plane could've carried sufficient charges to ensure the buildings came down, but there's still that niggling thing of the original passengers ...

Davie Jones' locker is my guess,

I liked the analysis of the one guy talking to his Mom, giving his full name to her as if She wouldn't know his last name.

*Edit: Oh, and congratulations on the dual passport. Your last name wouldn't happen to be Bond would it?

;)

Indeed, whether or not 9/11 was an inside job that's where they are, but the question of how they got there is explained by the official story w/o the need of mass cover-ups etc.

Bond? Heh, my parents are not the alliterative type.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

World Trade Center: 2,823 presumed dead (including plane victims)
Flight 11: 92 people on board
Flight 175: 64 people on board
Pentagon: 125 (not including plane victims)
Flight 77: 64 people on board
Flight 93: 45 people on board

fewer than 1,600 victims identified


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I liked the analysis of the one guy talking to his Mom, giving his full name to her as if She wouldn't know his last name.

One would think they would be better actors by now... ;)

(Apparently, practice doesn't make perfect.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I liked the analysis of the one guy talking to his Mom, giving his full name to her as if She wouldn't know his last name.

One would think they would be better actors by now... ;)

(Apparently, practice doesn't make perfect.)

The "one guy" being Mark Bingham, on United 93. Clearly that he gave his last name is conclusive proof that it wasn't the real person, nothing to do with the fact that he was already aware of what had happened to WTC 1 and 2, and that he would most likely face the same fate. That kind of information wouldn't have any impact on any such call I happened to make. Or that after he said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham," his next line was "Three guys have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb.", so that she would also know what his fate was likely to be.

Perhaps he wanted to be sure that she knew who it was in case his voice broke under the strain, so she didn't confuse him with another Mark his mother knew. Perhaps not. His motives will never be known. But it doesn't tell me that the person who called Alice Hoglan was not Mark Bingham.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I would have said, "Hi Mom it's "_____"., etc...

Maybe that's the way it was for them and I will let go of that argument. I never should have brought him up. It's disrespectful of me.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I posted it so we have all the data we can get on this topic. It would seem to hurt my case but I am looking for the truth so must present all info I get.

I have trouble comprehending people. Not data.

That's because you can't seem to comprehend that many many many of them disagree with you. Or you find it odd when your glaring inconsistencies are pointed out.

Here you seem to believe that 9/11 was a massive gov't conspiracy against the American people, and yet at every turn, you advocate more and larger gov't, bigger and more expensive bureaucracy, and more and more swell gov't programs. You want to take MORE money and power from individuals (impacting most those who can afford it the least) and hand it on over to the gov't.

Smart plan.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I would have said, "Hi Mom it's "_____"., etc...

Maybe that's the way it was for them and I will let go of that argument. I never should have brought him up. It's disrespectful of me.

I don't think referencing the details of the transcribed calls is disrepectful, nor out of bounds for our conversation. Just that we should take care when doing so, there may be some who visit our fora that knew the people concerned (and, no, I'm not saying I did know Mark).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...